Why does everyone blame Bush Sr. for staying within the limits of his stated goals in the Gulf War?
The public outcry, particularly from the liberals, would have been immense had Bush taken Saddam out. Not only would the coalition have been destroyed, but all support for the war internally would have died. It is also a fact, however, that Clinton made the situation many, many times worse by failing to insist on compliance with the terms of the ceasefire. It will take the remainder of Bush's first term, doing hardnosed negotiating (like we're seeing now, "leaks" about threats of using nuclear weapons, Administration suggestions that we may now attack Iraq, etc.) to straigten it out; ultimately, Saddam will relent, but not before the liberals (who don't understand what is happening) whine about it for two or three more years.
Bush did exactly what he SHOULD have done. While I fully expect Democrats to hypocritically complain about his leadership in the war, it does start to get on my nerves when Republicans complain without qualification.
The fact is yes, we would have been better off if Saddam could have been removed; but given the circumstances ten years ago, it simply wasn't practical to have done so. Unfortunately, Republicans' failures to be precise in their statements are tarnishing Bush's decisive victory in the Gulf.
Fortunately, history sorts these things out over time, and Bush 1 will be remembered along with Reagan and Bush 2 as the only successful presidents of our time. |
